If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Did you know that a large number of heterosexual couples have **** sex? And, that, a large number of ****sexual males..do not? Whether the stats are correct or not (and I doubt it), doesn't make ****sexuality right or wrong. It is just something for people to use as a club...seriously.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal, as long as the partners are of consenting age. My problem with Joseph's polygamy had to do with the age of some of the girls he took to wife, and that he married already married women. Otherwise, I honestly would not have had a problem with it.

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as uncons***utional the state's voter-p***ed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially recl***ify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The Court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Gay marriage will still not be allowed in the state, leaving time for Prop 8 defenders to challenge the decision.

Did you know that a large number of heterosexual couples have **** sex? And, that, a large number of ****sexual males..do not? Whether the stats are correct or not (and I doubt it), doesn't make ****sexuality right or wrong. It is just something for people to use as a club...seriously.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal, as long as the partners are of consenting age. My problem with Joseph's polygamy had to do with the age of some of the girls he took to wife, and that he married already married women. Otherwise, I honestly would not have had a problem with it.

While there may be some heterosexual couples that have **** sex and some ****sexual couples that don't--clearly, the largest group that does is ****sexual men. This is why I believe that when I went to a conference in a largely ****sexual area, all of the tables were covered with a pamplet discussing hepa***is and other diseases and the pamplet was obviously aimed at ****sexual men...had picture of two men half dressed on the front...

So, the exceptions, in my mind, should not make the rule. That said, I still wish you would read a book called "Gender Matters' by Leonard Sax Ph.D, M.D. The book is not about ****sexuality, marriage or anything of that sort. It just a book that discusses in depth the differences found between men and women.

I still strongly believe that as it takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world, the child is best raised by a mother and a father (as they are different). If a ****sexual couple wants children, by definition, the child is at least out of one of their biological parents. And I research shows that men and women are different enough that children benefit from both. Nature deems this as well.

It is interesting how you feel about polygamy. I wonder if this will open the door to openly polygamous relationships in which the state will need to recognize multiple mothers for welfare rights, rights to the estate, etc. I wonder how taxes would be figured out--child custody, etc.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Julie, the disease aspect, even if all of what you believe is true, is not a reason to declare ****sexuality "sinful" and most especially not a reason to declare marriage between two people, of the same sex, illegal.

Marriage between two people is about love and commitment. Studies have always shown that there is no significant difference between children raised with same sex parents and children raised with opposite sex parents. Both can have warm, nurturing families...or any number of problems, depending on individuals.

It's really time for America to stop discriminating against those who are same sex attracted. As was outlined in this latest court ruling, there is no good reason to deny rights to this cl*** of people. It is time to stop making them second cl*** citizens by trampling their rights, and start treating them, as we or anyone would want to be treated.

Julie, the disease aspect, even if all of what you believe is true, is not a reason to declare ****sexuality "sinful" and most especially not a reason to declare marriage between two people, of the same sex, illegal.

Marriage between two people is about love and commitment. Studies have always shown that there is no significant difference between children raised with same sex parents and children raised with opposite sex parents. Both can have warm, nurturing families...or any number of problems, depending on individuals.

It's really time for America to stop discriminating against those who are same sex attracted. As was outlined in this latest court ruling, there is no good reason to deny rights to this cl*** of people. It is time to stop making them second cl*** citizens by trampling their rights, and start treating them, as we or anyone would want to be treated.

I disagree that there is no difference in raising a child in a same sex relationship and one in a heterosexual relationship.

I personally find it arrogant for two women to say that a child does not need a father or two men to say a child does not need a mother.

To say that marriage is between a man and a woman is not descrimination, it is merely practical to recognize a difference for which even ****sexuals use gender as a qualification in what is attractive or not. How is it that they can claim to recognize a difference when choosing a mate, but then ask us to be blind when determining if that relationship is different based on the SAME qualifications they use when choosing a mate.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Well, there are all kinds of nurturing families that do not have your typical one mother, one father makeup, and the kids turn out great. It's not arrogant, if the person you love is same sex...that's just the way it is. It's not like they purposely set up that scenario and arrogantly proclaim there is no need for a mother or father. It just happens, and it is not bad for kids. Some really great kids have come out of same sex families. And some really awful kids have come out of hetero families (quite often, it seems).

Well, there are all kinds of nurturing families that do not have your typical one mother, one father makeup, and the kids turn out great. It's not arrogant, if the person you love is same sex...that's just the way it is. It's not like they purposely set up that scenario and arrogantly proclaim there is no need for a mother or father. It just happens, and it is not bad for kids. Some really great kids have come out of same sex families. And some really awful kids have come out of hetero families (quite often, it seems).

Yes, I am sure there are all types of families where the children turn out great...but we need to look at what is best for children. For example, if you look at the "lost boys of Sudan"--they were ripped from their families, forced to travel by foot in horrific situations, thousands died, suffered from starvation, etc. Yet, in spite of all of this, there are some who came to America and there is one who graduated from college with his degree in Economics. Would I use him as an example that it is okay to raise children in war-torn countries, rip them from their parents, keep them near starvation and with little education because "some of them turned out great"?

I am old enough to have seen so many studies over the years. When it comes to traditional families--there has been "discrimination" going on for years. First there was the argument that if you lived with someone first, you could see if you were "compatible" or not. All the studies at the time were this, in the short-term, seemed like a good idea. Those who were against it were seen as freakishly old-fashioned, etc. Well, years later and now the studies are out that living together first increases a couple's rate of divorce. Does this mean that every couple who lived together are going to get divorced? No. Could I find one example of a great couple? I am sure I could.

Do you remember Candice Bergman (sp?) having a child with no known father? A sperm donor? Remember how that raised eye-brows and out come the same arguments. Why can't a single mother raise a perfectly happy child. Examples come out and studies backing this...and then, low and behold...so many woman follow suit and they don't need a man to raise a child. Forward this to many years later and more studies done. It turns out that a child does need a father...not just for sons, but for daughters as well. It turns out the father-child relationship is important to the growth and well-being of the child.

Do you remember the Brady Bunch? Remember the idea that divorced families could bring families together, join them--and do just fine. It was idealized on T.V. How many people got divorced and remarried thinking they could find some type of happiness in a new marriage. The studies at the time said that kids were resilient to divorce. I am sure we could even find examples of kids from divorced and remarried families who were doing great. Anyway, the years go by and more extensive studies are done and what are the findings? That divorce has long-term damaging effects on children.

What about the stats on adoption? Statistically, kids have a harder time when they are adopted. That is just the stats.

So, now here we are with the idea of gay marriage. Marriage--years ago, stopped being about the protection of children (and women who bear the children) and has become about "love, companionship, etc." People bounce in and out of relationships. The kids are just a by-product of this "love" in some instances.

Ask any school teacher the effects of these kids being the by-product of love rather than the cause of marriage. So, now I listen and hear the argument that two men can do as good of a *** raising a child or two women can. I am just waiting for the data to come out years from now---as it always has, that children really do best with a mother and father who--by nature, are not the same.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Yes, studies come and go, and they are often biased, including the ones that favor the mother/father dynamic.

In this day and age we are seeing so many different family make ups, that I think it will be shown that all are viable ways of raising children (and not just the exceptions).

War, of course, will always be a terrible thing for children...but, not at all comparable to gay marriage...my goodness.

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but will probably be pointless, as I think we each hold strong opinions on this subject. It's not one of my favorites to argue with friends. It is a very sensitive subject.

The world is changing on this issue, though, and I am very glad to see it. So much harm has been done to people (and kids!) who are same sex attracted, it makes me beyond sad to think about it. I pray that things will continue to improve and they will not bear the stigma that has been imposed on them in the past.

Yes, studies come and go, and they are often biased, including the ones that favor the mother/father dynamic.

In this day and age we are seeing so many different family make ups, that I think it will be shown that all are viable ways of raising children (and not just the exceptions).

War, of course, will always be a terrible thing for children...but, not at all comparable to gay marriage...my goodness.

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but will probably be pointless, as I think we each hold strong opinions on this subject. It's not one of my favorites to argue with friends. It is a very sensitive subject.

The world is changing on this issue, though, and I am very glad to see it. So much harm has been done to people (and kids!) who are same sex attracted, it makes me beyond sad to think about it. I pray that things will continue to improve and they will not bear the stigma that has been imposed on them in the past.

I think the thing that we do agree on strongly is the way we treat people, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. While I do believe that marriage is for the protection of children, and I understand that on this point we disagree, I believe strongly in treating all with love and respect. I considered it an honor when a gay friend asked me to read his life essay that she wrote to get into a masters program and wanted my opinion. Regardless if somone knows my position on marriage, they should never question my love and concern for them as a person.

I think on this point, we agree.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

I think the thing that we do agree on strongly is the way we treat people, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. While I do believe that marriage is for the protection of children, and I understand that on this point we disagree, I believe strongly in treating all with love and respect. I considered it an honor when a gay friend asked me to read his life essay that she wrote to get into a masters program and wanted my opinion. Regardless if somone knows my position on marriage, they should never question my love and concern for them as a person.

I think on this point, we agree.

Yes, we can certainly agree on that, Julie, that all people, regardless of orientation or any other aspect of their physical or spiritual makeup, deserve to be treated with respect.

And, I do not disagree that marriage is, at least in part, for the protection of children. That is just another good reason it should be extended to same-sex partners, many of whom have children. Why should they be considered second cl*** citizens? I saw a YouTube on this, just recently, as a matter of fact...kids of gay parents talking about how they felt like second cl*** citizens, different or less, because their parents couldn't marry. That's wrong, IMO.

But, I've said enough, already. I think I started out saying I didn't want to get deeply into this!

Yes, we can certainly agree on that, Julie, that all people, regardless of orientation or any other aspect of their physical or spiritual makeup, deserve to be treated with respect.

And, I do not disagree that marriage is, at least in part, for the protection of children. That is just another good reason it should be extended to same-sex partners, many of whom have children. Why should they be considered second cl*** citizens? I saw a YouTube on this, just recently, as a matter of fact...kids of gay parents talking about how they felt like second cl*** citizens, different or less, because their parents couldn't marry. That's wrong, IMO.

But, I've said enough, already. I think I started out saying I didn't want to get deeply into this!

A child shouldn't feel like a second cl*** citizen...but a child should also have a mother and a father...as that is what it takes to have a child. I try to picture, who is not important in the equation? The mother? The father? Which one would you say was not important to your upbringing? Your mom? Your dad? What is the difference between a male role model and a female role model? Shouldn't a child have both?

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

I think every child should have loving parents, no matter the gender....or loving grandparents or whatever adults in their life, who really care about them and love them.

I guess that the difference for us is that I see that gender does make a difference and you don't think it does.

I have found this to be the case with many of my evangelical friends--a belief that men and women are basically the same and it is only the "skin" that makes the difference. I see gender as a vital part of who we are and our differences are great. If a person doesn't believe in God--then certainly nature dictates what is best for the child---a father and a mother.

Okay---so I have a family member who is gay (a step-brother). His mom got divorced before she married my dad. My gay step-brother helped father a child for a lesbian couple 20 or so years ago. The child eventually needed to know who is dad was. Can I just say, this is not healthy. From personal experience, these relationships are not healthy for a child. A gay couple who has children automatically have a necessity for either the father or the mother being out of the equation. Kids do not do well with this. This is my experience.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Julie, I think kids are always going to be curious about their biological parents, whether they are gay or not. My cousin gave up a child for adoption 43 years ago, and just recently heard from her daughter...who was very curious about her biological parents. She has not told her adoptive mother, because she knows she won't take it well. Healthy? Definitely, some issues to work through, and likely some pain to go with it, but that is life.

I know the LDS position on gender, but I don't share it (and is one of the many reasons I could not go back to the church). I believe reincarnation or something of that nature is much more likely..and that we have all been, both, man and woman, over the millions of years our souls have been progressing. What a marvelous way to really learn from all perspectives, yes? So, I do believe in eternal progression, both here and in other dimensions, with the goal being a return to God, but I don't believe our soul has a gender. I don't believe God has a gender. That is for we who are earthbound and focused on duality. That duality does not exist with God. God is One.

Julie, I think kids are always going to be curious about their biological parents, whether they are gay or not. My cousin gave up a child for adoption 43 years ago, and just recently heard from her daughter...who was very curious about her biological parents. She has not told her adoptive mother, because she knows she won't take it well. Healthy? Definitely, some issues to work through, and likely some pain to go with it, but that is life.

I know the LDS position on gender, but I don't share it (and is one of the many reasons I could not go back to the church). I believe reincarnation or something of that nature is much more likely..and that we have all been, both, man and woman, over the millions of years our souls have been progressing. What a marvelous way to really learn from all perspectives, yes? So, I do believe in eternal progression, both here and in other dimensions, with the goal being a return to God, but I don't believe our soul has a gender. I don't believe God has a gender. That is for we who are earthbound and focused on duality. That duality does not exist with God. God is One.

Yes, the stats show that kids who are adopted often (actually, my husband the therapist says "always") question who their biological parents are. Stats also show that more than 50% of adopted kids have iden***y issues because of the lack of knowledge surrounding their parents.

From my own experience, having children of your own genes does make a difference---character traits are famlial and as such, helps each parent identify with their children. Adoptive parents are often frustrated by the lack of knowledge toward these familial traits and according to my husband, once again, can dissociate themselves more easily with characteristics that they do not find appealing. They still love their children, they just can say---this is not my fault that he/she is like this.

So, with gay "marriage' we guarentee that the child does not have at least one of their biological parents along with no role model of the opposite sex. To me, this is just guinea-pigging our kids once again for the sake of the adults.

My sister also noted that when "marriage" is about love instead of children, then any thing should go with "marriage"---a father could marry his grown daughter. Polygamy, of course. Siblings could get married. All the laws that we have to protect children in "marriage" (and their genetic pools) could be simply wiped away. Who then does not have a "right" when it comes to marriage? As long as their are adults involved and "love"---then who would not have this right?

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

I think, the high risk of genetic diseases, when people are marrying too close to family, is a good reason for not allowing that. Besides which, it really is very rare that anyone would even want to do that.

As for parenting, usually gay parents have their own children (since it has been very difficult for them to adopt) and often they have had them within traditional marriage, so that both parents are still involved.

At any rate, even with the difficulties of adoption, I don't think we would want to stop people from doing that, right? Even if the kids and parents have some adjustment difficulties, I'm sure it is, most of the time, better than being raised by a single parent or two young parents, with little ability to care for those children.

I think, the high risk of genetic diseases, when people are marrying too close to family, is a good reason for not allowing that. Besides which, it really is very rare that anyone would even want to do that.

As for parenting, usually gay parents have their own children (since it has been very difficult for them to adopt) and often they have had them within traditional marriage, so that both parents are still involved.

At any rate, even with the difficulties of adoption, I don't think we would want to stop people from doing that, right? Even if the kids and parents have some adjustment difficulties, I'm sure it is, most of the time, better than being raised by a single parent or two young parents, with little ability to care for those children.

I think the question then becomes what do you want to call "marriage" and is there a standard in which we want to promote the bringing up of children. As you have noted, marriage has already been desecrated to the point that our society is seeing problems the scope of which is overwhelming. If we want to lower our basic standard in which we give kids one less advantage (that of having a mother AND a father), then I can see your point. What I see is that I would like to believe as a society, we still see marriage as a protection for bringing children into the world as we can see the dire consequences for what is happening when this standard is ignored.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

regardless of the changing legal rights given the GAYS, we know they dont enter into the Kingdom....

So whatever victories they gain in this life, it is oh so very temporary...

What if they are gay and believe in Christ? As a Mormon, I don't relegate all to hell as you do. As a Mormon, I know that it is through marriage and having children that we meet our full potential and joy in life (something God wants for us) and that children do best with their mother and their father. When that is not possible, still having a mother and father is best (as men and women are not the same), but I would never state that a person who is gay is more likely to go to hell then the next guy---God is the final judge and only He can judge fairly and with true love.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

What if they are gay and believe in Christ? As a Mormon, I don't relegate all to hell as you do. As a Mormon, I know that it is through marriage and having children that we meet our full potential and joy in life (something God wants for us) and that children do best with their mother and their father. When that is not possible, still having a mother and father is best (as men and women are not the same), but I would never state that a person who is gay is more likely to go to hell then the next guy---God is the final judge and only He can judge fairly and with true love.

I tried to "rep" you for that (but wouldn't let me ), even though I don't agree with all of this (that it is only through marriage that we can connect with God), but I sure do agree with you, that gays can be Christians and that judgment is God's call. I can't help but think that those who are so judgmental of gays, are going to experience some rather negative repercussions.

I think the question then becomes what do you want to call "marriage" and is there a standard in which we want to promote the bringing up of children.

Yes. The standard should be parents who love and care for their children, and don't abuse them physically or psychologically. That is the only standard I care about.

As you have noted, marriage has already been desecrated to the point that our society is seeing problems the scope of which is overwhelming. If we want to lower our basic standard in which we give kids one less advantage (that of having a mother AND a father), then I can see your point. What I see is that I would like to believe as a society, we still see marriage as a protection for bringing children into the world as we can see the dire consequences for what is happening when this standard is ignored.

Not sure why you believe, allowing SS marriage would "lower the standard". It might very well raise the standard (depending on what you believe the standard to be - for me, the standard should be love and respect). I know for certain it will give children more protection and sense of well being, rather than making them outcasts of society. Same for SS attracted people, who really do need to be treated with more respect.

Alan, let me give you two situations I am aware of. Both men are married, both have gay tendencies. The first man leaves his wife and goes to the life he thinks he is genetically called to. He eventually ends up with AIDS and goes back to his wife as he is dying. (He gave her AIDS prior to fully leaving). They love each other and he asks her to forgive him. He is remorseful for waht he has done to his wife and children. She cares for him until his death.

Second story. The second man does not leave his wife, but has a gay affair. He eventually tells his wife what he has done. He loves his wife and his children. They are working through it.

Both men believe in God. Both men see what these tendencies are doing or have done to their families.

In your mind, are these men going to hell?

(These are true stories, btw)

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Yes. The standard should be parents who love and care for their children, and don't abuse them physically or psychologically. That is the only standard I care about.

Not sure why you believe, allowing SS marriage would "lower the standard". It might very well raise the standard (depending on what you believe the standard to be - for me, the standard should be love and respect). I know for certain it will give children more protection and sense of well being, rather than making them outcasts of society. Same for SS attracted people, who really do need to be treated with more respect.

The reason I believe it would lower the standard is because men and women are fundamentally different. (If not, there would be no reason to be gay in the first place.) Because they are fundamentally different, the standard is to have both a man and a woman raising a child (the highest standard is their own biological child). Think about it Libby--how is your mom and dad fundementally different. What makes your dad different than your mom? Which do you think a child should give up in this standard?

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?